Sunday, 28 September 2014

The Individual Versus Individualism
Some people believe that their children will be like little copies of them, with similar ideas and interests. But what new parents find out quite quickly is that their little pride and joy is an individual. They like and dislike things all on their own, they don't need to be told. It's always interested me how some babies love men and how others find men scary and they don't want anything to do with them. Still other babies are more easy going and don't have an opinion about the matter. As they get older they expand the amount of things they have opinions about, clothes, toys, people.

It's isn't a very radical thing to say to most people, that each person is an individual. It seems self evident. But what we might forget is that this individual thing isn't confined to people. Most thing are in fact an individual, every animal, every tree, even every rock. Pick two random trees and examine them, you'll find that they are distinct from each other and that they are indeed individuals. Of course when we talk about individuals we are mainly talking about people. But just like trees, people share a lot in common with others of their kind. Because when you examined those two trees you would find that not only were there things that made them individual, but things that united them, that made them the same. That without a close look you most likely wouldn't be able to tell them apart. But even when every tree in the forest starts to look the same, you still know that each tree is an individual.

Society is very much like this, every person is an individual with their own interests, tastes and ideas. But we still accept, correctly, that we are not just individuals. We are a part of other groupings, a family, a dance troupe, an infantry platoon. The individual goes into making something bigger than themselves by joining together with other individuals. But one of the great paradoxes of human life is that while we are distinct individuals, hardly any of us want to be, we want to belong.

Liberalism has taken the reality of the individual in a strange direction. One that they believe is exciting and that we Conservatives find frightening. The idea of individualism, here the reality that the individual exists is pushed to it's extreme, not only does it exist but it is supreme. The individual not only has their own interests, tastes and ideas, but these things are more important than anything outside of the individual. It is a very selfish way of looking at the world. That our own desires and thoughts are more important than those of any others. That we only form families, or dance troupes or infantry platoons because we wish too. Not because these things are needed or because they are important and not because they allow us to belong, but because the individual chooses them. Nature has been reversed and the individual is supreme, society must change to accommodate the individuals individualism.

But there is a problem because society is made up of numerous individuals and individualism allows the most extreme and radical to express their individualism at the expense of every other individual. When someone becomes extreme in their behaviour or dress, in times past they were pulled closer to the average. Liberalism however always thought this was wrong and instead they believed in the autonomous individual. So now we have people with facial tattoos and we are all supposed to think this is right and normal. In another decade there will be another extreme practice and it will continue on and on. The individualism of everyone else is compromised to allow for this. The idea that there should be normal behaviour or dress, that there are limits to what the individual should do, is no where to be seen. Liberalism cannot see that individualism is only possible by constricting individuals because anyone who doesn't support a perpetual social revolution is denied their individualism.

When someone such as I says there should be limits to individualism, we are often attacked, even called Fascists. Which not only shows that they don't know what Fascism is, but it also shows the selfishness inherent in individualism. In Liberalism nothing it supports ever has any consequences, unless they are good. So when it is pointed out that individualism isn't freeing, it is instead a constriction, they simply deny it, after all how can such a thing be true. How could Liberalism be constricting? Individualism makes the individual supreme at the expense of society. But society is not separate from the individual, if it was then individualism might work, instead it encourages the worst in us and marginalises the best in us.

Wednesday, 24 September 2014

Multiculturalism Bites Owner - Again!
Multiculturalism is the idea that people of different cultures and backgrounds can live peacefully in the same community, while still enjoying their different cultures. For decades Liberalism has supported this, encouraged and even demanded Multiculturalism. Because at heart Liberalism believes that all cultures will disappear before the all powerful nature of Liberalism. So Multiculturalism is a weapon that can be used to break down society and bring everyone closer to Liberalism.

But it seems that Liberalism, the owner of Multiculturalism, doesn't really understand the nature of the beast. You see it is supposed to work like this, Liberalism is the piper and the piper plays the tune and everyone else dances to the that tune. But to protect Multiculturalism special protections have been put in place to stop it from disappearing too fast. It has a job to do. In fact it has two jobs. First it must help dissolve the host culture and secondly it must add it's weight to Liberalism by itself dissolving into the mass of Liberal. But what happens when part of this Multicultural weapon starts to realise that Liberalism is the enemy?

Well it appears that we are currently in that situation. A portion of Muslim immigrants into the West, people who were to help dissolve the West and then dissolve themselves, have decided they only want to do one of those things. The modern Islamist threat in the West is the creation of Liberalism. It isn't part of their plan, in fact it's so far away from their plan that they have no idea what to do. But that doesn't change the fact that neither we nor they would be in this mess if it wasn't for their blind faith in Multiculturalism. We are all the victims of a mad experiment to see what happens when you mix all different kinds of peoples and cultures together. The truly bizarre thing is we always knew the answer, because history keeps coming up with the same answer. They can live in peace for a long time, but sooner or later they fight.

Liberalism knew this but believed that those things happened to other people, but not to Liberals. Other people are stupid, but Liberals are smart, so smart that they will be able to solve any problem that arises. Because they believe that people are rational beings. But they are wrong, we are not always rational beings, sometimes we are quite irrational and at other times what is rational for me is not what is rational for you. But of course even if they were correct and all it required was being smart enough, it won't work if you refuse to admit that there is a problem. Consistently Liberalism has denied that there is any problem. They must protect Multiculturalism until it has done it's job, they will attack and defame anyone who tries to stop it, they have been relentless. But it meant that this problem has become bigger and bigger. Instead of stopping a small problem they have instead attacked those who have pointed out the problem, they have tried to shoot the messenger.

They keep talking about Islam as the religion of peace, they just don't get it. They refuse to say the truth. We all know the truth, it is only they who deny it. Islamism, whether they like it or not is a part of Islam. What surprises me is how timid the rest of Islam is towards Islamism, is it because it fears it or is it because it wants to join in with the winner? What is clear is that while we are in a war against Islamism and have been for decades, neither Islam nor Liberals have any real idea of how to combat it. They cannot fight an ideological war as that is one of Islamism's war aims, to destroy the ideology of both mainstream Islam and Liberalism. They hate the West and everyone who supports it. Just because you are not a Liberal doesn't mean you are safe, you are as much their enemy as the extreme Liberal is. Just like the Cold War, Conservatives and Liberals have a common enemy. One who would happily see us dead. But this time the military threat is not just other there, but here, if where you live has Multiculturalism that is. Because the threat was imported to destroy us, but Liberalism lost control of it, it was never supposed to be like this. Once again Multiculturalism has bitten it's owner!

Monday, 22 September 2014

The Long Way Home- A Book Review
Over at athriftyhomemaker Sanne Wijkers has been keeping busy not just with her website, but also with a short novel, The Long Way Home. I recently finished reading her book and quite enjoyed it. A swashbuckler set in a futuristic setting. Which probably made you think of Star Wars, but don't. The setting is very old fashioned with the space ships simply existing to makes things interesting.

The main character is a Gentleman Adventurer who starts as a mercenary, but in the course of the story becomes a pilot, a captive, an escapee, a smuggler, and truth be told an at times quite ruthless man. Although he seems to live in ruthless times, he is nearly executed twice just for being on the wrong side!

If you like old fashioned adventure stories, then this swashbuckling story might be for you.

Wednesday, 17 September 2014

Why Doesn't Liberalism Believe in Punishment?
Liberalism has two problems with punishment and they are both a part of Liberalism's wider ideals, Equality and Progress. Both present problems when it comes to punishment. Punishment implies that someone has done something wrong and that they must be corrected, or even destroyed to show how wrong the transgression was. But Liberalism keeps running into the twin problems presented by it's believe in Equality and Progress.

Equality states that everyone is equal, that there is no real difference at all between people. Black and white are the same, men and women are the same, the sick and the well are the same, the guilty and the innocent are the same. What! Equality does not mean that the guilty and the innocent are the same. But it does. Equality means that there is no real difference between any two people. Everyone is basically the same person regardless of any outward appearance or utterance. If thats the case then how can people do wildly different things in life? Very few people are murderers or rapists or burglars, but some people are. How does Liberalism reconcile the idea that as everyone is equal and that they are basically the same person, with the idea that some people do very bad things, but most don't? Environment, people become criminals because they grow up poor or because of drugs or alcohol, they are basically good people who because of something beyond their control committed a crime. They may be guilty of committing a crime but they are at the same time innocent because they are not a bad person, merely someone who did something wrong that was beyond their control.

Progress says that things get better, they always get better, they never stop, in fact it is impossible for Progress to stop. It is relentless. Progress is one of Liberalism's oldest ideals, it is in fact a cornerstone of Liberalism. But it isn't just technical Progress that is believed in and supported, but also human Progress. That we will all become richer under Liberalism, that we will all become healthier, smarter, in a word, better. Think of it as spiritual evolution but without God. As Liberalism rules, the average person gets better all the time. If people are constantly getting better then how does Liberalism explain crime? Well criminals are just late bloomers, their just like everyone else but not quite there yet. Don't give up on them, they will bloom.

No where is there the idea that certain actions and/or people are evil and that is because Liberalism doesn't believe in the existence of evil. They don't believe in it as a supernatural force, nor as something that exists within nature, let alone human nature. Evil is like superstition, something best left alone and forgotten about. Because if evil exists then it would imply, very strongly, that equality is false. That people are not basically the same person but that instead they are distinct, so distinct from each other that some of us do evil deeds and are either born or become evil. If that is so how can Progress be real, how can people become better if it is possible to become evil? It's not and therefore Liberalism denies that evil exists.

The Law is much older than Liberalism and it was created by men who believed absolutely in the existence of evil. They believe that it was important not simply to judge but to punish. Modern Law has been much changed by Liberalism, but that older Law still exists. Both in spirit and in text. Certainly ordinary people expect punishment just as much as the people of other times did. But modern Law tries it's hardest to find ways to not punish. Harsh words from the bench, fines, community based orders, suspended sentences. Now I am not saying these things are not appropriate, they may or may not be depending upon the crime and circumstances. But often prison sentences are not adequate and Capital Punishment is looked on a judicial murder. At each turn Liberalism seeks to minimize punishment. Every bad boy (or girl) needs the chance to show that they can be good. Sadly as Liberalism believes that the guilty and the innocent are equal, very little thought can be spared for the innocent. The victims of crime shouldn't exist, Liberalism is making everyone a better person. The victims of crime are an embarrassment to Liberalism and it doesn't know which way to look. It loves the control and power that the Law gives it, but it doesn't have any answers for crime because crime isn't supposed to exist!

Saturday, 13 September 2014

Why Capital Punishment is Moral
For as long as I can remember I have heard that Capital Punishment is wrong, that it is immoral but I have never accepted those arguments. My life, and yours, is precious, it deserves protecting and it deserves justice. A human life is not immortal, it is instead mortal and finite, it will end all to soon without it being taken from us. It is the most precious thing that we possess, but those who oppose Capital Punishment believe that our life is not worth justice, that a court hearing and a sentence is enough. I reject that view, it is not enough, it is an injustice, as if murder was not injustice enough. Here I will look at some of the most common reasons given to oppose Capital Punishment and then I will look at the reasons that I believe make the lack of Capital Punishment immoral.

Capital Punishment makes us just as bad as the murder
Here is a very common argument, that death is death no matter who deals it out. But it ignores a basic legal and moral question, is all killing wrong? Some people say yes it is, but in reality very few people really believe that. When you probe them for further details nearly everybody agrees that there are times in which killing is not wrong or illegal.

If you had a gun and you saw a child about to be attacked by a rabid dog would you try and stop it? Would you try and shoot the dog? To kill it? I think most people would say yes, I would shoot and kill the dog. What about if it wasn't a dog but a person with a knife about to attack a child, would you shoot them? Now it's a bit more difficult, a person isn't a dog, maybe you can reason with a person. Lets say the person cannot be reasoned with and that they begin slashing the knife in an attempt to kill or harm the child. Would you shoot them? What if they attacked you would you shoot them? Lets say you do shoot them, would you be a murderer?

I would argue, no, you were acting to protect yourself or someone who needed your protection. To kill in such a situation is not murder, it might be manslaughter, although in the above situation I believe that you would be justified. Now lets turn it around, you did not shoot, instead this person killed you. You were an innocent person, going about your lawful and peaceable existence, you have a right to do that. In fact the law exists specially to allow you to do that. But that has been taken from you, you have been killed. You have been murdered. Let us say that the person is arrested and is charged with your murder. They are interviewed by the police and get to tell their side of the story. They get a lawyer to plead their case in court and they will be judged by a jury of their peers. The case is not in any real doubt and they are found guilty and sentenced to death. There are those who will say that Capital Punishment is just as much an evil as your murder was. But here is to confuse innocence with guilt. You were innocent, you did not receive any legal defence, no lawyer, no jury, no judge, all of those things were denied to you. But the guilty person they received all of that. They were convicted by the law and sentenced to death by the law. Something that is always denied to the innocent.

Capital Punishment is revenge
My dictionary defines Justice as: 1) the quality of being fair, 2) the principle of fair treatment or conduct. It defines revenge as: any repayment for a wrong or injury. But in everyday language revenge has a nastier ring to it as it is assumed to be either malicious or unlawful. But in fact revenge can be either fair or malicious, it can be either lawful or unlawful. I have two questions, first is revenge wrong? Secondly why is life imprisonment justice but Capital Punishment revenge? Is revenge wrong? I'm not convinced it is, if someone you know has been murdered than I think it is unreasonable for an average normal person not to want punishment for that. And for that punishment to be unpleasant. Anger is as much a part of life as any other emotion and it is appropriate to feel anger in such a circumstances. But it is made out as if to feel anger is wrong, it is not wrong, anger is the correct emotion to feel. Why is life imprisonment justice but Capital Punishment revenge? Because there is no way to rehabilitate someone who is dead, you cannot show any mercy by commuting their sentence. It is a way for those who are soft of heart and brain to show how compassionate they are. Not at their expense but at ours.

What about killing an innocent man?
Here is a very powerful argument, what happens if you execute an innocent man? You cannot bring him back to life, a grave injustice has been done, it's better that 1000 guilty men go free than that one innocent man be wrongly condemned. The only reason anyone believes that 1000 guilty men should go free is because it's only rhetoric. Only lunatics believe such things. The reality is that we expect the legal system to do everything within it's power to tell the difference between the innocent and the guilty. That the legal system fails sometimes is not in doubt. But it is here that the problem resides. If an innocent man is found guilty, prison is not at fault, suspended sentences are not at fault, fines are not at fault and Capital Punishment is not at fault. The legal system and the rules that Parliament has given it have failed. Does that mean an innocent man cannot be executed. No one can say that, but that 1000 guilty men should go free on the off chance that one of them is innocent, not the knowledge that one is innocent, just the random chance, is absurd. Surely a second body could be established, a permanent Royal Commission or some such high body that could review cases. No one wishes for an innocent man to be executed but to use this extreme case as an argument against lawful punishment is wrong.

We are more civilized then that, mercy not brutality
Surely society is more advanced than to kill people, surely we can show mercy instead of showing brutality. Here an argument is made that we can be better people, that we should not be like the murderer, that we should show mercy. These all seem reasonable, but are they? Is it right to show mercy for the guilty and to ignore the pain of the innocent? Is it civilized to allow the guilty a second chance when they have shown no mercy themselves? In most cases this compassion is at someone else's expense, they can feel good about themselves, superior than thou, but in reality those who make these arguments are not interested in justice, they are interested in creating a better world and it doesn't matter whether that world can really exist or not. It is their desire for such a world that is important, not your pain, not the need for people to be safe nor justice. All of those things can be done away with as long as they feel good about themselves.

What about rehabilitation?
Prison exists to rehabilitate people, people in prison have done the wrong thing, including murderers. But we can all benefit by allowing these people to be rehabilitated. Rehabilitation of prisoners has been around for a long time and we know that some people are rehabilitated and that others are not. It is an art not a science. We know that many people get out of prison who will continue to commit crime. As a society we accept that, up to a point. But why should I have to sit next to a murderer on the train? I have no idea if I have or I haven't. But as murderers are released into the community, our community I may have done that. But at no point does it remove the stain that they have, you cannot rehabilitate a murderer because murder is not a normal crime. It is a crime against nature, against the natural order of things.

Now I will look at the other side at why the lack of Capital Punishment is immoral.

The lack of Capital Punishment punishes the innocent instead of the guilty
As I have written above murder punishes the innocent, if the guilty are not executed but instead get to continue to live their life then there has been no punishment. No matter how long the sentence or how horrible the condition the guilty should not be allowed to life and taunt the living. I am thinking of a particular murderer in Victoria where I live who was convicted of multiple murders, but who still lifes and breathes and who continues to taunt the families of his victims. The innocent suffered and continue to suffer, yes he is in prison but for how long? Until a Government or a judge decides to be both soft hearted and soft headed. The innocent have suffered enough.

It trivializes murder
In New South Wales a rapist was given 56 years in jail. I would be fine with that except he would have gotten less if he had killed them. How is that right or moral? You can get more for importing drugs into the country than for murder. How is that right or moral? I do not object to tough sentences, I do however object to sentences that make murder into just another crime. Murder is the second most serious crime, the only more serious crime is treason. To give such lenient sentences makes a mockery of both the victim and of the crime. Murder is not a trivial offence, but our Parliaments and our courts seem to disagree.

It allows the guilty to resume their life, something that is impossible for their victim
In Victoria the average sentence for murder is 16 years, that means that you can meet murderers on the street as you go about your lawful and peaceable activity. Decent people should not have to do that. Murders should not get the chance to marry and have families, they should not get the chance to grow old, they should not get the chance to enjoy life. They have committed a grievous crime against all of us and they do not deserve our sympathy nor our compassion. That should be reserved for the innocent, not the guilty.

Thursday, 11 September 2014

The Eighteenth Month
This last month has been quite a good one, I had one article go into the hundreds, Why don't the poor marry? And I had the fourth most success month ever, with over 1700 views, I still haven't cracked the 2000 mark yet. The above article has made it into the Top 10 list of articles on the site, but that isn't quite right. Here is the Top 10 list as Blogger presents them and next to each, in brackets, I'll include the total number of times the article has been clicked on.

Now you can see that Why don't the poor marry? should be in the Top 10, but not in 6th place. You can also see that Government and Traditional Conservatism and The Loneliness Epidemic should swap places and move up a spot. So why don't the numbers match up? I believe the reason is because Blogger (and I believe Google) give more weight to recent posts and more recent clicks than to older ones. Which means that it is not a true picture but a weighted one.

My worst day this month was the 12th of August when I had 25 visitors, the only only day I had with under 30 visitors. My best day was the 18th of August when I had 134. Also of interest is that in the first eighteen months of this blog I have had over 10700 American, more than 4,500 Australian and more than 1,000 British visitors!

As always each month is from the 11th of one month to the 11th of the next month.

August-September

Entry

Pageviews

United States

750

Australia

251

Ukraine

100

United Kingdom

89

Canada

64

Germany

58

France

55

Netherlands

33

Japan

31

Sweden

28

July-August

Entry

Pageviews

United States

584

Australia

226

Ukraine

70

France

45

Canada

35

Turkey

28

United Kingdom

22

Russia

21

Germany

20

Indonesia

19

The United States is nearly 200 more than last month, Australia was over 300 but is now at a more modest rise. The Ukraine has been near 100 for most of the month and today it finally reached it!

The United Kingdom is four times higher, Germany has nearly tripled, Canada is nearly double and France has also increased.

The Netherlands is back in the Top 10 as is Japan. Sweden came in on two days and then vanished.

Friday, 5 September 2014

What Would the World Look Like if the Liberal "ism's" Won?
As I look around at the various political ideals I keep thinking about what would the world look like if one of them "won". If one of them was supreme, with little or no opposition how would they organize society and the economy?

I won't look at all of the political philosophies, just the following three:
Feminism
Left Liberalism
Right Liberalism

Feminism
What would the world look like if Feminism was supreme? We cannot think of moderate Feminism, after all this is a world in which Feminism doesn't have any serious opposition. I think that a world in which Feminism won would be a very dysfunctional world, both socially and economically. Men would be outcasts, having no real reason to exist. Would men be needed for procreation or pleasure? Or would these things be "fixed" by science? Marriage would be gone, so would the family. Some women really like men, but would such a personal preference be allowed? Would the "girls just want to have fun" Feminists win or would the "all sex is rape" Feminists win? I cannot say, but I don't see much future in either.

Left Liberalism
If Left Liberalism was supreme society would be one in which individual choice would be regarded as supreme. Even stupid choices, the suicide booths in Futurama come to mind. Sounds a bit extreme? Not when you think about it, after all if individual choice is supreme then every choice is valid. It is valid because it is trivial, your life is important to you, but not to Liberalism. Your life doesn't belong to God, or to the community, it is your property, nothing to do with Liberalism. So if you want to end it in the suicide booth, thats your business, nothing to do with anyone else. If it is your business and no one else's, it's like a hobby, trivial. Who cares whether your a stamp collector or a jogger, it's trivial. A Left Liberal world would resemble a Communist society more than any other. Because all that would exist is the individual and the Government, maybe some businesses might still exist but they wouldn't be allowed to make too much of a profit. The Government and not the individual would really be supreme. If you worked it would be for the Government, tax would be high and whoever was successful would be demonized in public, but they would in private be given special privileges that shouldn't exist but would. Step by step it would move towards Socialism, whether it wanted to or not.

Right Liberalism
Right Liberalism dreams of a Laissez-Faire world, where Government gets out of the way and lets business run everything thats important. Not Government, that isn't important, making money is important. Everything revolves around making money. A stable society is only important if it makes money, if an unstable society makes more money then make an unstable society. Whatever makes money. Of course individual choice is important in a Right Liberal society as well. But those choices remain trivial, what brand of soap or soup do you prefer? It's important, a matter of life and death....but actual matters of life and death should not be discussed. You can vote for whoever you like, as long as the choice doesn't really matter. Economically it would be a dog eat dog world, in a Right Liberal world the Government concerns it's self with everything business isn't interested in, in other words what it cannot make a profit from. Workers exist to create profit and how it uses it's workers depends on the company not on any outside factor. Some would treat there workers very well, others would not. It would be a lottery with very serious consequences. Right Liberals like to think that such a world would be one of open competition were companies used that environment to generate wealth and efficiency's. But such an environment would allow big fish to slow the smaller fish, it would allow cartels and monopolies. In short it would allow the very worst of business to flourish.

To be honest I cannot think of how once they had become supreme any of these "isms" would survive. In each is there own destruction, it has been said that everything has the seeds of it's own destruction. Maybe that is true, I don't know. But I ask you would you really like to live in any of these societies? Maybe the top might be alright, but what about the middle or at the bottom? I for one don't see a better world in any of these, I think I'll stick to Traditional Conservatism.